In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "The doctrine ?forbids the use of the [copyright] to secure an > exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the [Copyright] > Office and which is contrary to public policy to grant.? Altera > Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. > 2005)(citation omitted)." > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/52/0.pdf > This is the central flaw of the GPL license. It attempts to secure > the exclusive rights of a modifying author who accepts GPL code by > attempting to force them to license their modifications "to all > third parties" under terms of the GPL. A "viral" public copyright > license is the very definition of copyright misuse. It does nothing of the kind. It extends rights to licensees, far beyond what typical licenses for computer code grant. It doesn't constrain the exclusive rights of a modifying author either. These right pertain only to his stuff, not the GPL stuff he's modifying. This author voluntarily puts his work into the GPL original, which he does by free untramelled choice. He is perfectly free to write his own code from scratch, or instead to modify a BSD licensed original. > Sincerely, > Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuernberg). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
